Hobbes wrote:Agnostics are a species of atheist; atheists who are so for the reason of declaring definitions of god inconclusive, absurd or "unknowable".
There are various reasons that suggest this is not an accurate definition. Just as ideas and the description of the physical world surrounding us have undergone seismic shifts and redefinitions, the specific tenets of most belief-systems - i.e. specific claims about miracles, or claims about historical events, and indeed the entire supporting story into which religious beliefs have been symbolised - have come under rational assault. As I have pointed out in a thread now 'disappeared' (to use a South American term) this massive shift began in approx. the 17th century.
To understand our present, and ourselves in the present, requires a retracing of the previous System of defining reality, and a comparison with the motives and intentions of the current one. It is an error to speak of our present one as representing 'truth' or of being 'truthful'. However scientism, and of course those who use scientism as a bolster for their own ideological platform and their own set of active truth-claims about the nature of this realm, assert that they are bringing 'truth' against 'falsehood' and in this process they fail to understand that they can make no claims at all about 'truth' since the systems of science and scientific description function only in a very limited range.
The description of reality now offered by scientism is little more than a description of processes and quantities and has nothing at all to say about value, meaning in any sense that could be called 'higher', nor really about much of anything. It is mute in all these areas. Yet, it sets itself up to attack and to eat away at the anterior systems which have been the tools through which *meaning* and *value* as we understand it and as it is structured into our language and also our sense of the 'way things should be'. Yet we turn against - and not altogether for 'bad' reasons - the symbol-systems of ancient times.
Now, today, a man is raised up in a mental atmosphere, and with specific mental content of an abstract sort. That it is
abstract (unconnected to himself, independent often and in ways that can be noted, of his experience, of his overall perception, or of his experience of himself within this realm as 'soul', i.e. psychically, and also intuitively) needs to be stressed. In a way that can be described fairly a man is indoctrinated with the notions of scientism, and to understand the darker aspect of this we might think of Chinese indoctrination camps where in specific ways men are trained and disciplined
NOT to think religiously, or 'metaphysically' (a naughty word in the Chinese lexicon), and must think practically, socially, 'scientifically', 'really' and in accord with a defined ideology. I use this as an illustration only. Our modern systems of organising thought must be seen as having
function. And this function can be looked into, spoken about, and it can be assented to as well as resisted as opposed. It must be pointed out that many religious structures of view take political positions against a dominant view which they resist for moral and ethical reasons. All of this can be spoken about in straightforward terms.
If today, and in the face of an overwhelming ideological pressure, or a
Weltanschauung cobbled together by various interests in society (the political sphere, the mercantile sphere, the general social and cultural sphere: all these and more can be named), if in the face of this, and in respect to specific ideological claims made by an atheistic camp with a notable ideological platform (not neutral in any sense), a man finds that his mind cannot assent to specific religious claims, or to the specific tenets of the religion he grew up in and which, as is likely, remains anchored to old conceptions and symbolisations which, for various reasons, it cannot supersede nor reinterpret into different terms, that man may have little choice but simply to say 'I don't know'. That is what agnostic means in the basic sense. It may imply there is a knowing but that he does not have access to it. Not that it is not there.
Thus agnosticism is substantially different from a declared and defined and intellectually supported 'atheism'. It
could be a ramp that slowly takes one to a declared atheistic stance, as well as an
intermediary position between a new mental organisation that allows one to have, hold and define a level of 'belief' and a way to organise and express subtle senses, intuitions, and
gnosis of another sort which cannot be expressed in the terms of science or of scientism.
Essentially our 'man' would have to do battle with people like you Leo and Hobbes! Ideologically-driven, politically-minded ideologues invested in the positions of scientism and (I gather)
radical liberalism and its tenets. The political dimension
must be considered. He would enter into a hostile, ideologically-driven environment of strident opinion representing itself as absolute truth, actively interested in overturning those orders of understanding that involve 'belief' and faith. If the general intellectual environment is filled with people like that, I'd suggest this represents a form of ideological coercion (because it does not allow 'free thought' on the issue and tends to shame any thought that does not conform to its apriories). It is an intellectual position supported by sharp emotionalism.
[Hello there Lacewing. How are you
feeling today?]
Leo wrote:I reckon that trying to maintain a distinction between the two positions is simply a theist ploy to claim that the agnostic is a bloke who hasn't made up his mind yet, as if some future "evidence" might persuade him, whereas the atheist is a bloke who is prepared to state "god does not exist" as a belief claim. This is utter nonsense ...
There are, as I indicated above, alternatives to this narrow view. 'Ploy' implies trick and self-deception, and your lingo in respect to 'theism' and those whose opinions you don't like and don't agree with is
always rhetorically charged. This reveals the 'shaming' aspect in your discourse and the intentionality of your ideological position.
An agnostic can be, quite simply, in an intermediate position, and could go either way.
Hobbes wrote:Indeed the true agnostic is a person that has realised the the very way Theists have set up their delusion is a way which definitively makes God unknowable. It's a position which sets reason apart from religion. But logically has to make an intelligent agnostic an atheist.
Have not you familiarity with The True Agnostic's Fallacy?
An agnostic, again, may be someone who does not have and cannot find the language to express something he *knows* and understands at a level that is either below the mind or above it. And this is a whole other problem and a result of the attack-position set in motion in the 17th century: placing religious expression and understanding in the same category as poetical expression and understanding
poetically-expressed.
The 'great truths' about life - all of them, and all that we can name from Homer to Shakespeare to Wordsworth to the Upanishads are offered in poetical-like terms. They are metaphysical and allusive insights into aspects of reality that simply cannot be expressed in mathematical and scientism terms.
This is really an elemental observation. And it is one both of you stumble mightily over.
